Secession Era Editorials Project

Dred Scott's Case.

Springfield, Illinois, Illinois State Register [Democratic]

(12 March 1857)

We had received the decision of the court in the above case, and had
intended it for our papers on Monday, but in consequence of the Inaugural
message we were compelled to postpone it, and we then mislaid it so as to be too
late for our paper on yesterday.
But it will be seen that the great difficulty is solved, and that the black
republicans have wasted more breath, ink and time on the Missouri compromise, as
they were pleased to call it, than it took to bring it into existence.
The Missouri Compromise with them meant everything, without it the world
would be at an end.
In their pretended zeal to restore it they endangered the safety of the
government and the constitution.
For its sake hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of clergymen prostituted their
holy office and the religion of Christ, and brought God's holy cause into
disrepute and disrespect.
To restore it the black republicans attempted to elect a man who was wanting
in every requirement for a proper discharge of the duties devolving on a
president.
For a period of over two years every good republican instead of saying amen
at the end of his prayer, said Missouri compromise.
The constitution was nothing and nowhere when compared to their darling
compromise.
But as a certain very great man one said, "Things is changed."

The supreme court of the United States, the highest and most dignified
tribunal in any civilized country, and composed of the very first order of
talent in the world, and to whose decisions it is an honor to bow with
respectful deference, have had the darling bantling of black republicanism
under consideration, and announce it illegitimate.
They say it is the offspring of red hot abolitionism, and cannot be
acknowledged as having anything honest or upright about it.
Thus it is thrown upon the hands of the black republicans who are compelled
to provide for it.

DECISION OF THE DRED SCOTT CASE.
-- Washington, March 6. -- The opinion of the supreme court in the Dred
Scott case was delivered to-day by Chief Justice Taney.
It was a full and elaborate statement of the the views of the court.
They have decided that following all important facts:
1.That negroes, whether slave or free, that is, men of the African race, are
not citizens of the United States, by the constitution.
2. That the ordinance of 1857 had no independent constitutional legal
effect subsequently to the adoption of the constitution, and could not operate
of itself to confer freedom or citizenship within the northwest territory on
negroes, not citizens by the constitution.
3. That the provision of the act of 1820, commonly called the Missouri
compromise, so far as it is understood to exclude negro slavery from and
communicate freedom and citizenship to negroes in the northern part of the
country is unconstitutional.
The Louisiana session was a legislative act exceeding the power of congress
and void of no legal effect to that end.
In deciding these main points the supreme court determined the following
incidental points.
1. The expression, territory, and other property of the Union, in the
constitution, applies in terms only to such territory as the Union possessed at
the time of the adoption of the constitution.
2. The right of citizens of the United States emigrating to any federal
territory, and the power of the federal government there, depends on the
general provisions of the constitution, which defines in this, as in all other
respects, the powers of congress.
3. As congress does not possess power itself to make enactments in relation
to persons and property of citizens of the United States in federal territory
other than such as the constitution confers, so it cannot constitutionally
delegate such powers to a territorial government organized by it under the
constitution.
4. The legal condition of a slave in the state of Missouri is not affected
by the temporary sojourn of such slave in any other state, but on his return his
condition still depends on the laws of Missouri.
As the plaintiff was not a citizen of Missouri, and therefore could not sue
in the courts of the United States, and the suit must be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.

This document was produced as part of a document analysis project
by Lloyd Benson, Department of History, Furman University.
(Proofing info: Lloyd Benson.)
This electronic version may not be copied, or linked to, or otherwise used for commercial purposes, (including textbook or publication-related websites)
without prior written permission. The views expressed in this
document are for educational, historical, and scholarly use only,
and are not intended to represent the views of the project contributors or
Furman University.